Tools far pre date man, evolution theory kicked in face

[dad]

A coincidence that ALL the ratios around the world just happened to be the same as what we would expect to see if they had been formed by millions of years of decay.

I cannot quite grasp what you fail to comprehend here. The ratios are just what was there. What the forces in place in this nature force atoms to do should not be considered when looking at ratios you will just confuse your little head.

Why didn't they have a ratio that couldn't have come about by decay? Then we'd all be saying, "Well, these ratios obviously weren't formed by radioactive decay, so I guess Dad was right!"

Well, if our forces and laws were not here how would or could the stuff there decay? The honest approach would be to say something like 'We do know that atoms behave a certain way now, and that this leads to decay, but we do not know what used to go on if the state was different'.

Why, out of all the possible ratios they could have had, do they have the exact ratio that indicates millions of years of decay? You have never explained what mechanism requires this.

All of that is simply in how you chose to read the ratios and what meaning you attach to them. You attach a same state past meaning.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I cannot quite grasp what you fail to comprehend here. The ratios are just what was there. What the forces in place in this nature force atoms to do should not be considered when looking at ratios you will just confuse your little head.


Well, if our forces and laws were not here how would or could the stuff there decay? The honest approach would be to say something like 'We do know that atoms behave a certain way now, and that this leads to decay, but we do not know what used to go on if the state was different'.
All of that is simply in how you chose to read the ratios and what meaning you attach to them. You attach a same state past meaning.

We can directly look at past epochs via telescopes and see the same state events happening. We can directly evaluate the results of past events and see the same thing as resulting from present day events.

So we have reason to assume the laws of science have been the same for millions and millions of years. Your denial that we have reason to assume this about the laws of science may be safely ignored.

 

[Kylie]

I cannot quite grasp what you fail to comprehend here. The ratios are just what was there. What the forces in place in this nature force atoms to do should not be considered when looking at ratios you will just confuse your little head.

So why those ratios instead of something else?

If they were caused by decay, then they could only be one ratio. If they were caused because that's just what was there, then there would be literally trillions of possible ratios. So the fact that they just randomly happened to get the ratio we'd expect to see from decay is a big coincidence, don't you think?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Your desire to make the past comply with today is not healthy. No evidence can be followed to show that the nature in Adams day was then same, only belief leads there.

I have no desire to make the past comply with today. The evidence suggests that today broadly complies with the past, as is reasonable. There is plenty of evidence of nature in Adam's (e.g. an early hominin's) day, and whole fields of study devoted to it - the historical sciences, e.g. geology, archaeology, paleontology, astronomy, cosmology, etc.

 

[dad]

We can directly look at past epochs via telescopes and see the same state events happening. We can directly evaluate the results of past events and see the same thing as resulting from present day events.

So we have reason to assume the laws of science have been the same for millions and millions of years. Your denial that we have reason to assume this about the laws of science may be safely ignored.

No. You can't. We do not even know if time exists out there actually. The light we see is here where time exists! You can't deny that with a straight face.

 

[dad]

So why those ratios instead of something else?

I assume that is how things were in the former nature. If we take three ping pong balls and aim a tube with forced air coming out of it, we can have the balls up in the air moving a certain way. Now, if we change the degree of air, that changes! We still have the same ping pong balls.

If they were caused by decay, then they could only be one ratio.

If they were here before decay, they would still be here though. The difference would be that NOW they would be in a decay relationship, as our nature dictates.

If they were caused because that's just what was there, then there would be literally trillions of possible ratios.

No. The daughter and parent presumably were already here and in a ratio. That ratio assumed a present state position when this state started, rendering any decay dating utterly useless in the long term. (beyond the 4400 years or whatever since this state started)

So the fact that they just randomly happened to get the ratio we'd expect to see from decay is a big coincidence, don't you think?

Not in any way.

 

[Rygaku]

No. You can't. We do not even know if time exists out there actually. The light we see is here where time exists! You can't deny that with a straight face.

The stars you see in the night sky are more than likely not there anymore the information we are receiving is possibly millions to billions years old. Time does exist the best way to explain it, time is a order of events from the past to the present into the future that being said the big bang is the start of time and it continues to flow forward.

 

[dad]

The stars you see in the night sky are more than likely not there anymore the information we are receiving is possibly millions to billions years old. Time does exist the best way to explain it, time is a order of events from the past to the present into the future that being said the big bang is the start of time and it continues to flow forward.

Hilarious. That just shows you live here and think in terms of time. Light cannot take time to do anything unless there IS time!

 

[dad]

I have no desire to make the past comply with today. The evidence suggests that today broadly complies with the past, as is reasonable.

Circular. Unless you first assume the past was the same nothing complies!

There is plenty of evidence of nature in Adam's (e.g. an early hominin's) day, and whole fields of study devoted to it - the historical sciences, e.g. geology, archaeology, paleontology, astronomy, cosmology, etc.

Not one tiny aspect of any of those sciences deal with what nature existed that I recall. Try not to rant and preach your religion here.

 

[Rygaku]

Hilarious. That just shows you live here and think in terms of time. Light cannot take time to do anything unless there IS time!

If you do not believe there is time look at a clock and start thinking really hard that the time is 00:00 if it changes to 00:00
congrats there is no such thing as time.

 

[Loudmouth]

Circular. Unless you first assume the past was the same nothing complies!

We observe that the past was the same every time we look through a telescope.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No. You can't. We do not even know if time exists out there actually. The light we see is here where time exists! You can't deny that with a straight face.

Your extreme skepticism is refuted by observing reality out there.

 

[dad]

If you do not believe there is time look at a clock and start thinking really hard that the time is 00:00 if it changes to 00:00
congrats there is no such thing as time.

You have no clock at the stars. Stand down son.

 

[dad]

Your extreme skepticism is refuted by observing reality out there.

You empty blab defending antichrist science claims is noted.

 

[dad]

We observe that the past was the same every time we look through a telescope.

What you see is here in time. Not there.

 

[Kylie]

I assume that is how things were in the former nature.

So, you are saying it's just a coincidence. An amazing coincidence.

If we take three ping pong balls and aim a tube with forced air coming out of it, we can have the balls up in the air moving a certain way. Now, if we change the degree of air, that changes! We still have the same ping pong balls.

But moving in a different way.

If they were here before decay, they would still be here though. The difference would be that NOW they would be in a decay relationship, as our nature dictates.

But in every single case, the ratios we see would be completely consistent with some period of radioactive decay.

No. The daughter and parent presumably were already here and in a ratio. That ratio assumed a present state position when this state started, rendering any decay dating utterly useless in the long term. (beyond the 4400 years or whatever since this state started)

Okay, let's try a hypothetical here.

Let's say that that radioactive decay involves two elements, A and B. Element A will decay into B, and there is always going to be twice as much A as there is B. (This is a VERY simplified example, in real life the ratios involve more elements with more complicated ratios, but this will do for the point I am trying to illustrate.)

If we test a sample of rock, we might always find that there is twice as much A as B. Decay indicates that this is the only ratio we could ever find, but if the amounts of A and B were arbitrary, then we could see any other ratio. We might find three times as much B as A. Maybe we find only A and no B, or only B and no A.

But since we consistently find only one ratio out of the billions of possible ratios we could find, isn't it more rational to conclude that the ratio is the result of a process that can only ever create this ratio, rather than conclude it's the result of something that could have produced literally billions of other ratios at random?

Not in any way.

So if you don't think the ratios we see are random, what do you think caused those particular ratios to come about?

 

[dad]

So, you are saying it's just a coincidence. An amazing coincidence.



But moving in a different way.

Moving according to what forces exist to act upon them.

But in every single case, the ratios we see would be completely consistent with some period of radioactive decay.

That is just taking the present process and attributing all things to it.

Okay, let's try a hypothetical here.

Let's say that that radioactive decay involves two elements, A and B. Element A will decay into B, and there is always going to be twice as much A as there is B. (This is a VERY simplified example, in real life the ratios involve more elements with more complicated ratios, but this will do for the point I am trying to illustrate.)

If we test a sample of rock, we might always find that there is twice as much A as B. Decay indicates that this is the only ratio we could ever find, but if the amounts of A and B were arbitrary, then we could see any other ratio. We might find three times as much B as A. Maybe we find only A and no B, or only B and no A.

But since we consistently find only one ratio out of the billions of possible ratios we could find, isn't it more rational to conclude that the ratio is the result of a process that can only ever create this ratio, rather than conclude it's the result of something that could have produced literally billions of other ratios at random?

There are not billions of ways that stuff was in the former state. There is the way it was, and the way it was left. The rest is purely in your imagination.

So if you don't think the ratios we see are random, what do you think caused those particular ratios to come about?

Creation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Circular. Unless you first assume the past was the same nothing complies!

The only assumption required is that the causal continuity of the progress of one's own lifetime (our experience that one thing leads to another), and that of human recorded history, extends back before recorded history. When we predict what we'd expect to find if that was the case and check to see if those predictions hold good, we find that they invariably do. When we find stuff that appears to be extremely old and check to see whether it fits with the assumption of progressive causal continuity, we invariably find that it fits very well. For example, we don't find recent fossils in ancient strata or vice-versa, they always seem to show a developmental progression that fits the assumption of causal continuity. This consistency is found across all the fields I mentioned; it's hard to ignore.

Not one tiny aspect of any of those sciences deal with what nature existed that I recall. Try not to rant and preach your religion here.

What you can and can't recall doesn't change the evidence from those sciences. I'm not preaching a religion, everyone's entitled to their own view of the world - I'm just explaining why I hold the view I do.

 

[Loudmouth]

What you see is here in time. Not there.

We see time there, in the past.

 

[dad]

The only assumption required is that the causal continuity of the progress of one's own lifetime (our experience that one thing leads to another), and that of human recorded history, extends back before recorded history.

Even the recorded history of the best record on earth shows that there was anything but some continuity! Not all things continue as they were since the Fathers died.

The laws we know have been here a long time, and they pre date science though.

When we predict what we'd expect to find if that was the case and check to see if those predictions hold good, we find that they invariably do.

I disagree when you are talking about the far past or even deep space. Bended light and such does not have to be due to gravity, although it is in our system. If all you mean is that you predict a bridge will stand and last 50 years, well, that is fine. (assuming Jesus doesn't return first)

When we find stuff that appears to be extremely old and check to see whether it fits with the assumption of progressive causal continuity, we invariably find that it fits very well. For example, we don't find recent fossils in ancient strata or vice-versa, they always seem to show a developmental progression that fits the assumption of causal continuity.

There is a pattern. However since man and most creatures could not leave remains I assume in the former nature, that pattern has zero to do with the religious implications you seek to pin on them.

This consistency is found across all the fields I mentioned; it's hard to ignore.

No need to ignore anything but the reasons you assign by faith alone as to why patterns exist. The patterns themselves are fine, thank you very much.

What you can and can't recall doesn't change the evidence from those sciences. I'm not preaching a religion, everyone's entitled to their own view of the world - I'm just explaining why I hold the view I do.

OK, sounds reasonable. I simply exposed how that view sits on a foundation of belief only.